Mirzoyan v. Holder

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUZANNA MIRZOYAN; SARJIK No. 07-74326
MIRZOYAN; et al.,
Agency Nos. A095-591-518
Petitioners, A095-591-519
A096-161-220
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ruzanna Mirzoyan and her son, natives and citizens of Armenia, and
Ruzanna’s husband, Sarjik Mirzoyan, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia,
petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.
2001), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency found Ruzanna not credible, inter alia, because the letters
submitted by Ruzanna’s mother and neighbors, which expressed condolences for
the death of Ruzanna’s brother and son and warned petitioners not to return, pre-
date the death of Ruzanna’s brother as stated in his death certificate and in
Ruzanna’s testimony. The agency also found Ruzanna not credible based upon her
submission of fraudulent documents allegedly from the Armenian Ministry of
Defense and Ministry of Internal Affairs.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the discrepancy between Ruzanna’s testimony and evidence regarding the
death of her brother. See Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 2000)
(inconsistencies between testimony and documentary evidence support an adverse
credibility finding). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that
petitioners submitted fraudulent documents where there were significant
discrepancies apparent from the face of the documents, and the government’s
forensic report undermined their reliability. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741,
2 07-74326
745 (9th Cir. 2004) (fraudulent documents going to the heart of the claim may
justify an adverse credibility finding). In the absence of credible testimony,
petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft,
348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Petitioners’ CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony
found to be not credible, and they do not point to any other evidence that shows it
is more likely than not they would be tortured if returned to Armenia. See id. at
1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 07-74326